AASA IDEA Proposal The conflict between parents of students with disabilities and members of the school district is an unending issue that has continued for numerous years. More often, special education administrators are nominated study the conflict for finding a solution amicable to all parties. If not, conflict can set in motion due process enquiries that transfer valuable time and money away from general district resources (Mueller & Piantoni, 2013).

Gaining an understanding of the manner in which administrators generally address such conflict can offer guidance to leaders as they encourage partnership and group effort between the home and school (Mueller & Piantoni, 2013). About four decades ago, only twenty percent of all students with disabilities in the United States were able to gain access to education in public schools. However, in the present day, this number has significantly increased to ninety five percent. This is deemed to be a great success for advocates in the educational sector and civil rights sector - to have students with disabilities in each school in the nation (Pudelski, 2013).

Summarize the AASA IDEA proposal

AASA has a conviction that the present moment is the time to reconsider and have a change of mind regarding the manner in which parents and districts find resolution over the individualized education program (IEP) of a student. After six months of having meetings and discussions, this particular proposal was established by the organization (Pudelski, 2013).

It took into consideration the thoughts of special education administrators, education policy specialists, special education hearing officers, as well as special education lawyers. The IDEA proposal is supposed to encourage and stimulate an exchange of ideas, and serve as a channel of communication between education establishments, parent and debility support groups and policymakers (Pudelski, 2013).

Discuss the history of special education law as it pertains to current legislation and laws pertaining to due process

The account of special education law as it relates to contemporary legislation and law referring to due process is largely owed to the federal courts. Three decades ago, the federal education legislation was enacted and this made the far-reaching and fundamental recomposition of classrooms in America to be conceivable. More so, the federal courts had a great hand in increasing the number of students attaining education in public schools (Pudelski, 2013). The U.S. Congress, in 1975, under great increased influence from disability rights advocates, educationalists and parents, approved the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). In particular, this act assured an accompanying set of rights to children categorized as handicapped. The edict encompassed the fundamental right to a suitable and fitting education in the least obstructive setting with the provision of associated services (Pudelski, 2013).

In addition, with respect to this act, parents were permitted to appeal a special education appraisal for their child and assent or rescind consensus to special education. Parents were also handed the right to request for a self-determining education assessment at public expenditure when they differed with the school district's special education evaluation. In a more outstanding manner, if the parents had the belief that their child was not attaining a fitting and satisfactory education, they have the option of entreating a due process enquiry administered by an autonomous hearing officer. The parents could be given representation by counsel, request and interrogate witnesses, and scrutinize records connecting to the child (Pudelski, 2013). The provisions for due process contained in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, contemporarily acknowledged as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, were approximately matching to the provisions well-ordered by the court.

In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act enacted in the year 2001 by U.S. congress is proposed to eliminate the achievement and attainment gap with culpability, flexibility and choice so that no child is left behind in obtaining education (Public Law, 2002). Every school is entitled to consult with the local educational agency together with its support team in order to come up with programs on how the school will employ its resources to provide education (Public Law, 2002). Moreover, the federal No Child Left Behind Act takes into account different aspects such as income levels, disabilities, race and also the level of proficiency in English to ensure there is unrelenting reliability, legitimacy and also impartiality in the evaluations of the students' learning.

Evaluate the positive and negative impacts of eliminating due process hearings on the current structure of IDEA

There are constructive and adverse impacts of eradicating due process enquiries on the contemporary structure of IDEA. One of the major benefits of eliminating...

The inquiries make use of deferral resources in terms of time and money and therefore such cancellations would be cost saving to the federal government. The other benefit includes the creation of relationships. Group effort and partnership between parents and educators is promoted and endorsed during the course of the essence and letter of AASA IDEA proposal. For the parents, the creation of relationships and associations with the educators, the consultations and negotiations are usually cordial and solution-focused. In addition, with the hearings, the parents and the schools are able to become amicable and therefore able to form relationships that are long-term. In the end, this aspect becomes beneficial to the students and therefore brings satisfaction to both parties (Mueller and Buckley, 2014). There is also a channel of transparency and communication created in the whole process. This is for the reason that both parties are able to present their grievances and communicate them to one another. The parents and the educators are able to openly communicate to each other regarding the educational aspects of the students with disabilities (Mueller and Buckely, 2014).
On the other hand, one of the perceived disadvantages of eliminating the due hearing processes implies lack of attaining good law. The main objective of the enquiries is that the petition of parents who feel their children are deprived of education is heard. This elimination implies that such grievances would not be heard or taken into consideration and therefore no implementation of good law (Mueller, 2014). In addition, results from a research undertaken by Mueller and Buckely (2014) show that the elimination of due process hearing would be relieving for most parents. Outcomes of the study showed that most of the parents considered the process to be overwhelming and daunting and do not really appreciate the processes. The parents consider the process to be uncomfortable.

Propose alternative ideas the special education leader could consider

There are proposed alternative ideas which could be taken into consideration by the special proposed leader. There are great alternatives to the proposal being presented by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA). For instance, in accordance to Samuels (2013), the elimination of options is not perceived to be a good notion. One of the recommended alternatives is offering and presenting more avenues for dispute resolution and thereafter allowing the market to function and operate for itself (Samuels, 2013). There is also an alternative of eliminating the option of making an appeal to the federal court owing to the outcome. The reason behind this is that, despite the fact that through the appeal one ultimately gets good law, this does not in the end serve the individual by permitting for the final decision to be held over for a long period of time (Samuels, 2013). In addition, another alternative is applying the SpedEx model which only provides consultants when it is requested by the parents and districts. This program is entirely voluntary the work done by it has been perceived to be satisfactorily valuable. This differs from the proposal being presented by the AASA in the sense that the latter necessitates both of the parties to adhere to the recommendations given by the consultant.

Conclusion

Enquiries for due process concerning children with disabilities are accusatorial, costly and disrupting. AASA IDEA proposal encompasses a new procedure that would recoup and acquire an external consultant who would generate an educational plan that parents as well as a school would have to adhere to for an equally agreed-upon period of time prior to any lawsuits being filed. At present, when schools and parents are not able to come around to having an arrangement over the individualized education program (IEP), for a student with disabilities, national special education regulation necessitates a due process hearing. This permits both parties to combine specialists and have their cases proclaimed before an autonomous hearing officer (Samuels, 2013).

References

Mueller, T. G. (2014). Litigation and Special Education The Past, Present, and Future Direction for Resolving Conflicts Between Parents and School Districts. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1044207314533382.

Mueller, T. G., & Buckley, P. C. (2014). Fathers' Experiences With the Special Education System The Overlooked Voice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(2), 119-135.

Mueller, T. G., & Piantoni, S. (2013). Actions speak louder than words: How do special education administrators prevent and resolve conflict with families. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 2(2), 1-15.

Public Law. (2002). An Act. 107th Congress.

Pudelski, S. (2013). Rethinking Special Education Due Process. Retrieved 20 October 2015…